The Leftist bias of everything but the opinion page of the WSJ has been quantified by academics at UCLA. In FACT, they found the WSJ to be MORE biased to the Left than the New York Times!

So, in a recent Real Time Economics blog entry, it comes as no surprise that the hosts of the forum would kneel before a notoriously Leftist Oracle, fail to note Buffett’s very well documented bias and refuse to publish my comment fully substantiating all of that.

The hosts of this blog routinely delete my comments for no apparent reason. My guess is that they simply prefer for the opposing view - especially when fully substantiated - not to be aired. I no longer even attempt to comment there as SBVOR. Doing so guarantees deletion of my comments. It now appears they no longer allow me to comment anonymously. I suppose they’ve blocked my IP address.

So, read them if you like. But, understand their bias and their apparent intolerance for opposing views! Do NOT be fooled by the WSJ name!

7 comments:

I'd like to carefully agree and disagree with on this particular post.

First of all, I agree with both of your main points about Warren Buffet being blatently lefty and most of the reporting content of the WSJ showing a leftward tilt. Both of these facts are regrettably accurate and readers of anything put forward on the pages of the WSJ would do well to keep this in mind.

I disagree with your tactics in venting your anger toward this bias. While I understand (and largely share) your frustration at the kind of willful ignorance being displayed by many in the media during this recession, I believe we will be more successful in the long run by consistently and repeatedtly putting forward the reality of the situation with as little ad hominem as possible.

Your anger at the situation and passion for the truth are evident in every post. If Real Time Economics has blocked you from commenting then I encourage you to dissect every post of theirs that contains bias with the cold precision of a surgeon and use your anger as motivation, not writing material.

This certainly may not be the kind of response you desire, but it is my honest reaction to your (understandable) indignation.

As always I enjoy your blog and look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

It is true that we have different styles. Clearly, I am more aggressive than you in my assault on those whom I consider to be the mortal enemy of all freedom loving people. But, I would argue that today’s Democrats are a FAR greater threat to all freedom loving people than al Qaeda (and, I consider al Qaeda to be a very grave threat).

I respectfully disagree with the ad hominem charge. Please note that including satire, mockery and harsh criticism of the individual along with the policy critique does not equate to employing the ad hominem tactic. If you ever catch me attacking the individual without also addressing the issue, then I will confess to stooping to pretty much the only tactic ever employed by the Left.

As an example…Did I harshly mock James Hansen? Sure. But I also linked to the evidence which, in my view, more than justifies the mockery - and I have also done so elsewhere. If you would approach that differently, I respect your choice.

Is my approach likely to bring committed Democrats to my side? No. In my view, nothing will. I agree with Jonah Goldberg when he describes American Liberalism as “a totalitarian political religion”. But, I would go one step further and describe American Liberalism as a “totalitarian political religious cult”.

I have had too many debates with so-called Liberals where they freely admit that I have all the facts on my side but that their opinion remains unchanged. Even more so than most cult members, these particular cult members cannot be brought to reason by any means - primarily because they have been far more stringently and pervasively indoctrinated than any other cult members in the entire history of humanity.

I think the best we can expect is to make a mockery of this totalitarian political religious cult - while presenting the evidence that justifies the mockery - in the hope that fewer will join the single most destructive cult ever known to humanity.

But, that’s just me. I sincerely respect your choice to take a different tack. And, again, I sincerely appreciate and encourage your honest and unvarnished feedback.

P.S.) I have - demonstrably - been far more generous to the hosts of the WSJ Real Time Economics Blog than they have been to me.

On the WSJ blog, I am no longer allowed to substantiate objective facts. By contrast, I continue to include the WSJ Real Time Economics Blog in my bloglist - with the appropriate and demonstrably factual disclaimer.

Whether, under these circumstances, I will continue to provide a link to the WSJ Real Time Economics Blog is an open question.

Those so-called “journalists” who purport to cover economics and treat Buffett as some sort of economics guru are enormously dishonest in two fundamental ways.

First, it is my opinion that these “journalists” deliberately omit the fact that Buffett is about as Far Left as they come and do so knowing full well that the average reader will falsely assume that Buffett is a Republican businessman affirming Leftist views.

First, let me begin with an apology. Reading your reply and looking at my original post, I realize that I used the term "ad hominem" when I should not have. I did not intend to say that you levelled baseless personal attacks at the authors and ignored the content of their post or article.

Second, I agree with both you and Jonah Goldberg (a personal favorite over at National Review) when he characterizes modern liberalism as an totalitarian ideology with strong facist underpinnings.

Finally, I think in one sense you are right that the determined leftists (Democrat or otherwise) will not be swayed either by your or my writings. But I firmly believe that there are a small cadre of devoted believers on both sides of the spectrum with a large "mushy middle" in between that does not pay close attention to politics or current events.

It's this mushy middle that is being manipulated on a daily basis by the media into voting with their gut based on half truths and emotional pleas. You and I are targeting different sub-sets of this large middle group. I hope to engage people in a less combative format, while you seem to want to appeal to their basic sense of right and wrong.

Neither of these approaches is wrong, and I value what you do. In fact, I have often been frustrated with conservative politicians who run their campaigns the way I run my blog when they should be doing it the way you run yours. Put the truth in people's faces. Don't shy away from a good argument. Don't be afraid to get your fists a little bloody in the brawl.